Ohio Ballot Measures (2015)

[bagelman]

Yes on all three. Don't like drugs, but it's your choice.

Are you aware of the market monopoly? I share your view on the drugs but earlier in this thread I was mad enough about the market monopoly to rant.

[Clark Kent]

Yes on all three. Don't like drugs, but it's your choice.

Are you aware of the market monopoly? I share your view on the drugs but earlier in this thread I was mad enough about the market monopoly to rant.

No entirely. Could you elaborate, please?

[Intell]

Yes on all three. Don't like drugs, but it's your choice.

Are you aware of the market monopoly? I share your view on the drugs but earlier in this thread I was mad enough about the market monopoly to rant.

I mean is it a government monopoly on drugs, or private businesses?. Anyways, whoc ares about a market monopoly, it can be changed later.

[bagelman]

Yes on all three. Don't like drugs, but it's your choice.

Are you aware of the market monopoly? I share your view on the drugs but earlier in this thread I was mad enough about the market monopoly to rant.

I mean is it a government monopoly on drugs, or private businesses?. Anyways, whoc ares about a market monopoly, it can be changed later.

Not when it's codified into the constitution.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you're voting yes on 2, you're effectively negating 3.

Issue 2 is a complete farce concocted by the Republicans specifically to confuse the electorate into invalidating marijuana legalization even if it does pass, in addition to making future citizen's initiatives harder to qualify for passage. It's just another way for Republicans to restrict voters' power.

[Torie]

If you're voting yes on 2, you're effectively negating 3.

Issue 2 is a complete farce concocted by the Republicans specifically to confuse the electorate into invalidating marijuana legalization even if it does pass, in addition to making future citizen's initiatives harder to qualify for passage. It's just another way for Republicans to restrict voters' power.

Clever little devils the Pubs can be sometimes, are they not?

[Marokai Backbeat]

They are undeniably good at what they do.

[DavidB.]

1: No
2: No
3: Yes

(Republican who is in favor of Republicans being elected and marijuana being legalized)

[Mr. Illini]

Yes/No/Yes

[bagelman]

YES!/Yes/No

If you're voting yes on 2, you're effectively negating 3.

Issue 2 is a complete farce concocted by the Republicans specifically to confuse the electorate into invalidating marijuana legalization even if it does pass, in addition to making future citizen's initiatives harder to qualify for passage. It's just another way for Republicans to restrict voters' power.

Does Issue 2 invalidate Issue 1?

Would Issue 2 invalidate an amendment that just straight-up legalized mary-jane without a monopoly clause?

Have you read Issue 2? What are your sources?

It appears that Issue 2 may invalidate Issue 3, which would be a shame if the voters approve Issue 3 despite its clear flaws, but there is likely to be a legal challenge to that anyway and it would generate incentive to craft a weed legalization bill without the monopoly clause.

1: No
2: No
3: Yes

(Republican who is in favor of Republicans being elected and marijuana being legalized)

If Republicans are forced to actually make themselves more appealing to voters instead of rigging things with gerrymandering, they'd be better off in the end.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The best case scenario if both 2 and 3 pass (which I think is pretty likely, personally) is a long protracted legal battle.

Issue 2 was crafted by the Republican legislature themselves as a direct response to the marijuana legalization initiative gaining steam. Nearly all of its official support comes from Republicans or right-leaning organizations. It defines some ridiculous, vague standard of how ballot initiatives cannot create any "monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" and even directly addresses Issue 3 in its text.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow I really wonder what they're referring to.

Oh, and who gets to determine what is a "monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" is the "bipartisan" ballot board, not any group of actual legal merit. If they just decide that's the case, then suddenly voters have to approve of two simultaneous amendments. What purpose does this serve except to arbitrarily limit direct democracy? I don't even like direct democracy all that much but this is just transparent.

The Republican Party hasn't cared about limiting the power of monopolies or oligopolies since maybe the dawn of the 20th century. This doesn't even affect any current businesses, of course, because that would create conflict with their business-class base, so they made sure it would only affect anything directly approved by the voters, so all present effective monopolies (like cable companies) are untouched. It's a totally naked attempt at seeing where the wind is blowing on issues like marijuana legalization and using their power as legislators to f**k with the voters' heads.

[muon2]

I think Marokai and I are in agreement on the nature of the ballot issues. However, as I posted earlier in the thread the empowering of monopolies/oligopolies is common at all levels of government and not confined to the Pubs. The Dems in power are just as likely to favor corporate cartels through regulatory mechanisms.

[Marokai Backbeat]

^ Fair point.

[DavidB.]

Of course monopolies and oligopolies enforced by the government (which is a superfluous thing to say, but still...) are bad, but this proposal has only been introduced in order to stop marijuana from being legalized, which is just a nasty trick. I do not support that.

[Horus]

Yes on all three.

[DemPGH]

Yes, No, Yes.

Living in western PA, I've caught some commercials from Ohio that specifically encourage a No on 2 and a Yes on 3, so I assumed that whatever 2 was it was an artful, deceptive attempt to undermine 3 since conservatives love to do that ("right to work," etc.), and probably need to resort to chicanery on many things.

The best case scenario if both 2 and 3 pass (which I think is pretty likely, personally) is a long protracted legal battle.

Issue 2 was crafted by the Republican legislature themselves as a direct response to the marijuana legalization initiative gaining steam. Nearly all of its official support comes from Republicans or right-leaning organizations. It defines some ridiculous, vague standard of how ballot initiatives cannot create any "monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" and even directly addresses Issue 3 in its text.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow I really wonder what they're referring to.

Oh, and who gets to determine what is a "monopoly, oligopoly, or cartel" is the "bipartisan" ballot board, not any group of actual legal merit. If they just decide that's the case, then suddenly voters have to approve of two simultaneous amendments. What purpose does this serve except to arbitrarily limit direct democracy? I don't even like direct democracy all that much but this is just transparent.

The Republican Party hasn't cared about limiting the power of monopolies or oligopolies since maybe the dawn of the 20th century. This doesn't even affect any current businesses, of course, because that would create conflict with their business-class base, so they made sure it would only affect anything directly approved by the voters, so all present effective monopolies (like cable companies) are untouched. It's a totally naked attempt at seeing where the wind is blowing on issues like marijuana legalization and using their power as legislators to f**k with the voters' heads.

Oh, okay. Thanks. Makes sense. That's in perfect alignment with how the GOP operates.

[DavidB.]

Yeah, that sounds pretty horrible.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1: Yes
2: No
3: No

Of course monopolies and oligopolies enforced by the government (which is a superfluous thing to say, but still...) are bad, but this proposal has only been introduced in order to stop marijuana from being legalized, which is just a nasty trick. I do not support that.

That's exactly how Issue 2 got on the ballot.

[DavidB.]

That's exactly how Issue 2 got on the ballot.

Well, I know. That's what I'm saying Or are you being sarcastic?

[TJ in Oregon]

If both Issue 2 and 3 had passed, Issue 2 would take effect immediately and Issue 3 would take effect (if possible) after some delay period due to an arcane clause in the Ohio constitution that says approved amendments initially proposed by the legislature take effect immediately upon passage while amendments proposed by petition take effect after a short delay period. I have no idea why it was set up that way a bunch of years ago, but Issue 2 was clearly and obviously written to block Issue 3 and would have done so. Issue 2 is also so incredibly specific that it's hard to fathom another amendment that it would block that would actually be proposed.

[TJ in Oregon]

Here's the (current) results map (showing percentage against the marijuana legalization referendum):



Portage County is having computer problems and hasn't been able to report results.

Otherwise this is a really wacky election map for Ohio. Marijuana was way stronger in the Cincinnati metro area than anywhere else and surprisingly strong in some of the river counties (Lawrence, Jefferson) but surprisingly weak in Athens. Metro Cleveland voted about the same as the statewide average and metro Columbus was more conservative. Perhaps less surprising is that the same three conservative counties stand out as always: Holmes, Mercer, and Putnam.

[Goldwater]

Interesting. I was under the impression that metro Cincy was fairly conservation, so I wonder what makes support for marijuana legalization relatively strong there.

[bagelman]

Interesting. I was under the impression that metro Cincy was fairly conservation, so I wonder what makes support for marijuana legalization relatively strong there.

I was under the impression that if metro Cincy wasn't conservative than it was at least more conservative than Cleveland, Columbus, and OU.

Weird.

[muon2]

Interesting. I was under the impression that metro Cincy was fairly conservation, so I wonder what makes support for marijuana legalization relatively strong there.

I was under the impression that if metro Cincy wasn't conservative than it was at least more conservative than Cleveland, Columbus, and OU.

Weird.

It may be that legalization isn't a traditional liberal-conservative split, especially with the cartel language in the question. Consider that the Cinci region may simply have a more pro-business view to the issue: less opposition to the cartel language from the left and less opposition to use of cannabis from the right.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Athens seems like an area that would have lots of growers. They wouldn't be fond of the monopoly clause.